capability, and do savings by looking at our force structure and more aggressively transfering units to the guard and reserve that we don't need forces that truly need to be on active duty. you know, next i'm concerned about we're going to go through a brack background. at the same time that we're still retaining permanent bases overseas without adequate participation of our allies. in nato, most of our nato partners are spending less than 2% on gdp on defense. we're at about 4.7% right now. yet we're, we have 45,000 troops in germany. 79,000 troops i think in europe all together. we are moving to brigade combat

teams, heavy brigade combat teams out of germany. out of that 45,000. but i think we ought to look at if they are not involved in the pre-positioning of force, if they are not in expeditionary nature they ought to couldn't of europe. we can demonstrate our capability by doing some of the thing you mentioned. having rotational forces and certainly doing joint military exercises, demonstrates our commitment to the north atlantic treaty organization. in south korea you mentioned 20,000 soldiers in south korea. there are substantial and this is obviously dod military construction programs going on. i think -- i believe it might be -- some of it might be suspended in terms of bringing dependents over. at a time when south korea is spending 2.7% of their gdp, you know, so we're looking at closing bases down in the united

states and yet retaining overseas permanent military bases for allies that are spending much less on defense than we are. we need to get them to do more. so, i mean i leave it open to you on those points. direction of these cuts and i think they compromise capability where i don't think we need. >> first of all and i'll try to go as quickly as we can. we agree with you on general officers and that was an initiative general gates had thd elimination of four star we downgraded the number of four star to three star u.s. europe on and on. >> i would love to see what ratio you would come up with between flag officers and soldiers at the end of that. i'm sorry that we're time. if you can get to me on the record on any of these questions i appreciate it. >> mr. west?

>> thank you, mr. chairma membe want to thank the panel. i would like to publicly recognize general odierno. thank you for the privilege and honor of serving under your command and throws my brother red leg sitting back there, colonel thompson could to see you. questions we have. we've been down this road before. mr. wilson talked about task force smith. when i talk about the decrease of brigade formations we're having can you talk to us about the ramifications as you see as far as combat tours of duty. some of these effects that we see with social issues we just talked about relates to the amount of tours that our young men and women are having to serve in these combat zones of operations. so have we looked at the ramifications of what could happen with maybe increased tours in combat zones?

>> congressman, thank you very much. in terms of -- we've looked very carefully at this as we decided where to take force structure out. because we're now out of iraq and imade a significant disturbance in the up tempo of our combat forces and now that we're starting to reduce our presence in afghanistan that's also impacted that. so we feel that as we grew the army in the mid-2000s to meet those requirements, now that they are going away we now have the right force structure to be asked to do what we're currently doing. as i said earlier, where we might incur some risk is if we got involved in two major theaters that were extended over a long period of time. for initial combat operation of more than enough capability, we will have the confidence to conduct those operations, so i feel comfortable with that. if they get extended again

that's where we run into risk of the things you talk about, increased up tempo on our soldiers and the other things that go along with that we're dealing with today. we're cognizant of that. it's important to build reversibility into what we're doing so if necessary we can increase immediately the size of the army. one of the things we'll do is we're going maintain officers and noncommissioned officers in our institutional army. we migrated them out over time. more in the training base. more -- so if we have to expand we can keep the expertise and use them to help us expand if necessary as we move forward. >> second question, we have a briefing earlier this week about operations in afghanistan. and one of the things that i think is a very key lesson learned that we finally got to was the vso program. of course right now they are looking to expand that vso program, so when i look at the fact that we're talking about

putting more responsibility and burden on our special operations, you know, our special operations forces and the united states army going to be capable of expanding and extending the vso operations in afghanistan as well do we see possibly our conventional forces having to augment the vso programs? >> thank you, congressman. we are, in fact, continuing to increase special operations forces throughout this budget. we'll go up to 35,000, special operations forces. we've increased in every area. we've increased rangers, special forces battalions, the number of companies involved, we're increasing their logistics capability. as we're increasing vso operations we're also building on relationships that have been built between the special operations conventional army and as we do that, in fact, you'll see conventional forces pick up a piece of this mission and, in fact, you'll see that in this year that we're using conventional capabilities to

help with these vso operations. and i think it's important. we've learned that we can do that. it's a good partnership in order to best utilize our special operations force in conjunction with the capabilities of our conventional forces to support them in these key operations and i think you'll see more of that as you move forward in afghanistan. >> and last point being from down in south florida i'll tell you i'm concerned that mahmoud ahmadinejad was visiting cuba and hezbollah training camps down in south america in the tri-state area. i hope we don't forget that and, you know, we can't continue to see it an economy of force operation because that's pretty near and dear to us and i believe that the enemy is seeing that we're not important training a very strong presence down in the south. so with that being said, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. gibson. >> thanks, mr. chairman and gentlemen for being here today,

your leadership, commitment to our troops and families and veterans. and let me just say from the outset that i'm generally supportive of what you're doing here in the budget. particularly some of the major pieces of it. notable exception, i associate myself with mr. kauffman, a lot of his remarks with regard to positioning of our forces. but what i would like to explore here in the next few minutes is nesting of operational concepts, interested to know to what degree we use modelling and simulation as we went through the strategic review and particularly here at the joint operational concept that drive the army operational concept because so much leads to requirements and the need for structure and procurement, leader development and everything and in that regard. last time the army operational concept was published in 2009 very aware of how all the ins

and outs to make that happen. have no expectation there's a new document on the treet. but in your nhat you took as you went through the process of the strategic review, if you can share with me the notable points with regard to the '09 document that you think may need to be readdressed in the current process of operational concept and then other deductions and risks that you see in the force in relation to what we think we're going to need? >> as we've looked at first it's about looking at the last ten years but also trying to project out what we'll see in the future. under the operational concept document one of the key things is what we see the threat will be in the future and how we must respond to that threat and it's the concept of the hybrid threat, concept that we'll face an adversary that has combination of conventional, unconventional, regular

terrorist activities, criminality and that we have a force that's being developed that can meet that spectrum of conflict and oh, by the way different pieces of it from the lowest end combined up to the highest end. that we don't believe we'll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future. that's one of the key pieces we're using as we move forward. if you have a chance to go out the our national training centers you can see us as we go through training rotations this will be part of this. command is running a series of seminars that they are looking at how we develop leaders for this environment, how we develop tactical and operational concepts to operate in the future environment and how do we incorporate the lessons we've learned over the last ten years. so i think after we get the results of this work done we'll then look at updating our operational concept and look at where we want to go. the last point i want to make, then this relationship between

conventional and special operations forces and how that's changed over time and the benefits we've gotten through the integration and synchronization between conventional and special operations forces and how that fits in. those are some of the things we'll focus on. >> as you look left and trirgt sister services and you think about it in view of the joint force, i'll just share the concern that i have is that as we look at the joint operational concepts, we look at the potential employment, i'm just concerned that we haven't -- and for good reason over the last decade we've been involved in achieving these objectives in the central command aor but we've done the detail planning, have added up, have done the math to look at what's required to move the force, the risk associated, the timeline and as i look at 301 platform, united states air force i consider the

navy's dimension in this and then i think about the joint force delivery if we ever, you know, we pray it isn't the case that we have to deploy, but we know if we're ready there's less chances that we'll have to particularly when we exercise it and demonstrate it to the world that we have that capability. i'm just concerned we haven't really done yet the detailed planning and then looked at the experimentation that's required, the exercising that's required, the information ops that would go with that and look to you to assuage those concerns. >> no. i don't disagree. in fact a couple of things. let me add. as i look back it's about unity of effort. it's about understanding the different dimensions of warfare. i didn't get into operation information, cyber warfare all of those things that must be incorporated in our joint operational concepts. we're currently doing that. it's about how we train our headquarters at all variety of

levels and that's all part of this as well and what you said. >> thank you, gentlemen. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. scott? >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen i want to talk with you a little bit abouttri-care and proposed increase. our families are paying $460 for the tri-care prime. about 2,017, move to 2,008 under this proposal. we ask those rate increases be limited to increase in the retirement plan. is that not correct? >> you have to restate. i'm sorry. could you say that again? tri-care prime -- you all have asked us to allow you to go from $460 to $2,048. that's a significant increase to people that have earned that

benefit. and quite honestly i come from a risk management background. to me that seems like something -- if industry did that that's an indication they were trying to push people out of it and shut the program down and i guess my question is that the intent of the significant rate increase? >> no. absolutely not. one of the critical parts of this to consider, if you will, even after the full increases are into effect at the end of '17, that rate will by every reasonable projection still be a very generous rate compared to an equal policy in the private-sector if you could attain such an equal policy. i said earlier this is not something that we're particularly happy to do and it was not something that we didn't do -- that we did do, rather without a great deal of thought

anticipate consideration. and after we talked about this amongst ourselves all the service chiefs, all the service secretary, all the command sergeant, majors and master chiefs of the navy, we decided that this was absolutely essential to preserve the benefit as we tried to do to tailor it and layer it in a way that only those people who are retired age, under the age of 65 and are likely to be working and based on their -- based on their rank would receive the greater of those increase -- >> mr. secretary. i'm sorry i only get five minutes. i don't mean to interrupt. it amazes me that in this time that we're in that we continue to take and take and take from the military under this administration and yet for somebody who hasn't paid their dues, if you will, like our military service members have, there'sodtamps or reductions

for any of the entitlement programs that truly are driving this country off acliff. with that said for the retirement changes that are proposed, you propose to go to a brack-like commission which is a straight up or down vote by congress and would essentially not allow for the individual input of the members of congress. why do you believe that that is a better route than, to go through the normal committee process? >> well, i'm glad you used the word better and not best because there's no good way to go about this. as secretary gates he looked at the retirement system, military currently employs we ought to ask some questions about the fairness of it. we ought to ask somenfigure it way that would allow information vest more early. would that in fact help us to

recruit anticipate ultimately retain folks in a different and hopefully better fashion. best y to go about that as we saw raro process is do it through an independent body. it's the opinion of this congress to do it differently well that's something i'm sure you can talk about with the administration. le we looked at this health care proposal. number one -- >> mr. secretary i'm down to about 45 seconds. i but, again, it's a reduction in benefits to those who protect our personal freedoms and individually betters and quite for other americans but what president refused to make any proposal to deal with the entitlement benefits for those that aren't contributing. one last thing the dramatic brain injury is an issue that we have done a better job of that. i want to commend you for the work that's been done there.

some of the gentlemen that i have met with spoke very positively about the use of the hyperbolic chamber the same way you treat bends and the benefit they had from using those machines yet the v.a. has refused to pay for that. i'm out of time. i would appreciate fit you work with us, with the v.a. to make sure those service members that do have that traumatic brain injury can receive that treatment. >> we have five programs in the department of defense including the army that are currently looking at that. i've said if those programs prove promising i'm not going at it for the fda or anybody else, we'll authorize that treatment. >> thank you so much. >> mr. schilling. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member smith, first i would like to thank you two gentlemen for your dedication to our country and war fighters. it's greatly appreciated. just a couple of things quickly. what i was wondering, mr.

secretary, i was aware of a study that's been done, been ongoing to adjust the organic base in the future and i was just wondering do you know when we might see that plan or maybe when it will be released? >> i believe you're referring to the department of defense's st 2 t sector bis by sector, tier by tier. these issues are relevant and there's no timeline interest. e're working as all the ng it to a conclusion so we can make some decisions and plot a way forward. >> very good. and then general, one of the things that i'm concerned about is that as we do these cutbacks and i'm sure you're concerned also but one of the things that's really important is the rock island arsenal which is one of the areas where myself and mr. lopsac represent.

back in 2006 when our troops were faced with the ieds that were ripped through their doors and vehicles, the group stepped up and took this challenge and within three weeks they were able to turn these doors around, the frag 5 kits is what they called them which allowed the private-sector or folks outside to get these things out. that's one of the main concerns that we want to make sure is just because the turn around was faster than the industry couldn things when it comes to the war fighters is to make sure we keep those warmed up, of course. >> again, it's about having that organic capacity that enables us to respond quickly and it's about developing the core capabilities that we want to sustain within our organic capacity and that's what we're watching. the secretary and i watched that very carefully, dunwiddy. that's something we don't want

to sacrifice. >> yield back. >> mr. platts. no >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary. general odierno, a pleasure to be in your company. john, for your service here, many years and allowing me to try to fill your shoes here on the committee when you went over to the department and general odierno i first met you in kirkuk many years back and i've always been amazed at your great leadership and humbled to be with you. we're a blessed nation because of both of you and your service to the nation and to the men and women in the army and their families. they are all in good hands because of both of your leaderships. i'm is going try to be quick because i may be the last one holding you from getting out the door and i think that the gentleman from texas, mr. reyeses may have raised tissue

of the modernization of the bradley fighting vehicle, say up front, very much ae is a great employer in my district and wonderful company to work with. more importantly they build an incredible piece of equipment in the bradley and the concern that i think mr. reyes raised i would echo in looking at the '13 budget request for modernization of the bradley, it looks like it would require a shutdown of the operating line at some point, and my worry is what the cost will be to restart it but maybe ev ability to restart it because of the loss of that skilled labor force that's incredible, including many veterans of vietnam and wars since including the most recent one. i visit the plant. i usually runck on the line building vehicles that they and others benefitted from in the combat theater. so, i first just

echo his conce any and all efforts we can to find a way to not allow that line to shut down and the consequences that may come from that both financially and again most importantly the ability to restart it with a skilled labor force that's unmatched by any other. related to that is it's my understanding that the army's engineer forces that their bradleys are notre upgrade and comparable to the bradleys or m-1 tanks found in the other elements of the heavy combat brigade team sean it possible to look at those upgrades to bring them up to par and so on the same level as also weighted in to prevent that shut down and again the co your consideration of those concerns as you look at how to balance the books and make it all work. i know you have a difficult assignment and take that ase

assignment very seriously. the final issue four year testing schedule for the howlitzer system. it seems a lengthy process for an upgrade of a current system not a new system. so another concern. appreciate your service and leadership and having the privilege to represent the army war college, it's been a remarkable honor to serve on this committee. in my final years i'll leave congress at the end of this year and see what happens next. but serving on this committee and having the privilege to interact with true american heroes such as boston you in your service has been something i'll always treasure. so if you would like to respond to any of those concerns, i would be grateful. >> first of all, i want to wish you first all the best in the

future. i truly enjoyed the opportunity to serve with you and you do great work and you know army centric here but you're very effective representation was very moving to me personally. we share your concerns on the industrial base. we talked about it several times. the bradley program is turning down and we're working as we are in other facilities to try to find ways to fill those gaps particularly for the higher end employee positions, the engineers, the highly trained technicians, et cetera, et cetera and whether as i've mentioned before through ppps or through foreign military sales you mentioned the other services, obviously we're willing to consider all kinds of solutions to this. one of the reasons we're working with the department so we can have a cross services approach

to our industrial based challenges. secretary panetta has need a critical issue on his and we're working with him very diligently to try to ensure we have some answers. >> just very quickly, thank you, sir, for your service and continue ed service to the nati. i wish the best of luck. some things we're looking at, some programs that we're trying to put in there to help sustain that want base and we'll continue to work that over the next several years to make sure we sustain a readiness level there. with the program and testing this is something that the secretary in a are looking at throughout all of our programs is the cost and amount of testing that we were doing sometimes redundant and so we're going to work very carefully with congress in order to try to reduce the costs and length of some of our testing that is required and we agree with your assessment. >> as i said at the beginning e

to make this all fit and work to have the final product what we need for army and ultimately our nation's defense. we do plan to be back in theater at least once or twice more. i think it will be number 9 to afghanistan and 12 to iraq if that works out wean the draw down. >> bring fudge. >> yeah. i'll make a note next time i see you i'll have some of my mom's peanut butter fudge. mr. chairman, with that i'll yield back. >> mr. thompson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, general, thank you for joining us today. the new defense strategy and budget requests reflect the hard work and forward thinking of president obama, our dod civilian leaders, and our senior military commanders. i've been sang all week that ominous and exaggerated fears about the national security consequences of reduced growth

in the defense budget are certainly unfounded. there's no reduction in the pentagon's base budget from 2012 to 2013 could mean the difference between the greatest military known to man or a hollowed out force and i think the american people understand that. in fact there's room for further savings in the department's budget though i strongly oppose across the board cuts that would be imposed by sequestration. general odierno, is it your assessment that afghan national security forces are on pace to self-sufficiently defend afghan's sovereignty and defeat insurgents by the end of 2014 and also i would like four to

respond, general, to the february 1st quote of secretary panetta when he said that hopefully we could reach a point in the latter part of 2013 that we could make the same kind of transition we made in iraq from a combat role to a train and assist role. what is your interpretation of secretary panetta's remarks? >> thank you, mr. johnson. first, i think that we've seen continued increase in capabilities of the afghan security force. i got back the day before christmas there. i'm encouraged by the progress made by the afghan security forces. as you see us move forward we are putting them more and more in front. we'll continue to do that. as we learned in iraq it's important to do it slowly, do it right and